JUDGMENT Srivastava, J. - This is an appeal against an order of Mr. Justice Mehrotra by which he rejected a petition filed by the Appellant u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. The dispute relates to two shops in premises No. 49/62 Nayaganj, Kanpur. The premises belong to Respondents Nos. 4 & 5. The shop was originally in the occupation of one Sarveshwar Prasad who subsequently took Radha Kishan as partner. The business in the shop was thereupon carried on in the name of Sarveshwar Prasad Radha Kishan. Learning that the shop was going to be vacated, the Respondent No. 3, Ram Pratap Sharma, applied to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of Kanpur that the shop be allotted to him and an allotment order was passed in his favour on 7-1-1953. Ram Pratap Sharma applied to be put in possession of the shop. Two applications in revision against the order of allotment in favour of Ram Pratap Sharma were However filed before the Commr. on behalf of Sarveshwar Prasad Radha Kishan, but they were dismissed on 29-9-1953. After the dismissal of the revision applications Ram Pratap Sharma again applied for delivery of possession and this time he wanted police help too. 22-10-1953 was fixed for the disposal of this application. As the file was reported to be untraceable the case was adjourned, first to 9-11-1953, then to 23-12-1953 and then again to 8-1-1954. In the meantime the Appellant, Suraj Narain, applied for an allotment of the shop in his own favour, and an allotment order was actually passed in his favour on 18-11-1953. The Appellant Suraj Narain is the younger brother of Radha Kishan, one of the partners of the firm Sarveshwar Prasad Radha Kishan. On 19-11-1953 the Appellant succeeded in taking possession of the shop on the basis of the allotment order that had been passed in his favour on the previous day. On 8-1-1954, when the application of Ram Pratap Sharma for delivery of possession over the shop with police help was put before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer for disposal, the Appellant appeared and pointed out that the shop had been allotted to him on 18-11-1953, and he had already entered into possession. He therefore prayed that the proceedings on the application of Ram Pratap Sharma be dropped. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer fixed 25-1-1954, for the ditposal of the matter. He therefore prayed that the proceedings on the application of Ram Pratap Sharma be dropped. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer fixed 25-1-1954, for the ditposal of the matter. Ram Pratap Sharma then moved the District Magisrtate for relief and brought all the facts to his notice. The district Magistrate called for a report from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. The latter submitted a report in which he admitted that an allotment order had in fact been passed in favour of Ram Pratap Sharma on 7-1-1953, but a second allotment order had been passed in favour of Suraj Narain on 18-11-1953 on the basis of wrong and misleading report of the House Inspector, the latter having omitted to bring to the notice of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that the shop had already been allotted to Ram Pratap Sharma and his application for being put in possession of it was pending. The District Magistrate then passed an order on 1-4-1954, in which he remarked that the allotment order in favour of the Appellant Suraj Narain had been made wrongfully due to a misleading report and should be set aside by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. He also directed that Ram Pratap Sharma should be put in possession and that some suitable action should be taken against the House Inspector who had made a misleading report. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer then passed an order on 3-4-1954 cancelling the allotment in favour of the Appellant on the ground that it had been obtained through misrepresentation of facts and directing that the allotment order made in favour of Ram Pratap Sharma was to stand. He also ordered the Appellant to deliver possession over the shop to Ram Pratap Sharma by 16-4-1954, and said that in default possession would be given to Ram Pratap Sharma through police aid. On 9-4-1954 the Appellant filed the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen and prayed that the order of the District Magistrate dated 1-4-1954 and that of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 3-4-1954, be quashed by a writ of certiorari. On 9-4-1954 the Appellant filed the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen and prayed that the order of the District Magistrate dated 1-4-1954 and that of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 3-4-1954, be quashed by a writ of certiorari. He also claimed a writ of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate and the Rent Control Officer to restore the allotment order in his own favour and to give effect to the same The District Magistrate and the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were impleaded in the petition as Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Ram Pratap Sharma as Respondent No. 3 and the landlords of the shop as Respondents Nos. 4 and 5. On 12-4-1954 an interim order was passed by this Court directing the Respondents not to take any steps to enforce the orders dated 1-4-1954 and 3-4-1954. This order of interim stay was however vacated on 5-5-1954 and as result the Appellant was evicted from the shop and Ram Pratap Sharma was put in possession of it. Ram Pratap Sharma remained in possession for some time but then informed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer that he was vacating the shop. The shop was thereupon allotted to firm Har Swarup Chandra Deo on 8-1-1955 and in pursuance of the allotment the new allottee was put in possession of the shop. The Appellant then applied to this Court on 21-3-1955 that he permitted to implead the new allottee firm Har Swarup Chandra Deo through its partners as opposite party No. 6, in the writ petition. The permission was granted. The Appellant was subsequently also permitted to add a relief in the petition to the effect that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer of Kanpur dated 8-1-1955 allotting the premises to the Respondent No. 6 be quashed. 3. The main grounds which were pressed on behalf of the Appellant in the writ petition were: 1. That as Ram Pratap Sharma Respondent No. 3, had not entered into possession on the basis of the allotment order passed in his favour on 7-1-1953 it was open to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to allot the shop to the Appellant on 18-11-1953. The allotment was a valid allotment and as the Appellant had entered into possession on its basis the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction left to cancel it. 2. The allotment was a valid allotment and as the Appellant had entered into possession on its basis the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had no jurisdiction left to cancel it. 2. That in cancelling the allotment in the Appellant's favour on 3-4-1955 the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not applied his own mind or used his own discretion. He had only carried out the orders of the District Magistrate dated 1-4-1954. The order of cancellation was therefore bad in law. 3. That the shop had never become vacant in the eye of law so as to justify an allotment in respect of it in favour of the Respondent No. 6, Firm Har Swarup Chandra Deo. This latter allotment having been made during the pendency of the writ petition was to be considered subject to the result of the writ petition and was liable to be quashed if the allotment in favour of the Appellant was found to be a valid one. 4. The petition was opposed mainly on behalf of the new Respondent No. 6, Firm Harswarup Chandradeo. The case which firm set up, was that the original tenant of the sbop was Sarveshwar Prasad alone. He left Kanpur for Indore and Radha Kishan somehow persuaded him to let him occupy the shop and to carry on business in the name of Sarveshwar Prasad Radha Kishan. Really there was no partnership firm of that name. Radha Kishen therefore took possession of the shop unlawfully without a proper allotment order. When Ram Pratap Sharma found that the lawful tenant Sarveshwar Prasad had left he got the shop allotted in his own favour. Radha Kishan however did not want to leave the shop and at first went up in revision to the Commr. against the order of allotment in favour of Ram Pratap Sharma. When the revision petition failed and it was found that Ram Pratap Sharma was insisting on being put in possession of the shop with police help Radha Kishan set up his own brother the Appellant, and got an application for allotment made by him. against the order of allotment in favour of Ram Pratap Sharma. When the revision petition failed and it was found that Ram Pratap Sharma was insisting on being put in possession of the shop with police help Radha Kishan set up his own brother the Appellant, and got an application for allotment made by him. The application of Ram Pratap Sharma for being put in possession of the shop was delayed on the pretext that the file was not traceable and a misleading report having been obtained from the House Inspector Radha Kishan and his brother, the Appellant, succeeded in getting the shop allotted in favour of the Appellant on 18-11-1953. When Ram Pratap Sharma learned of this he moved the District Magistrate. He called for a report from the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and the latter admitted in his report that the allotment order in favour of the Appellant had been passed wrongly on the basis of a misleading report. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had thereafter rightly cancelled the allotment in favour of the Appellant as he had felt that had the full facts been known to him he would never have passed that order. In order to defeat the order dated 3-4-1954 and to keep Ram Pratap Sharma out of possession parallel proceedings were started by the Appellant Suraj Narain and his brother Radha Kishan. Suraj Narain filed the writ petition on 9-4-1954 and Radha Kishan filed a suit (suit No. 96 of 1954) in the court of the Civil Judge of Kanpur. In the petition the Appellant claimed to have taken possession of the shop on 19-11-1953 but in the suit Radha Kishan alleged that he had all along been in possession and that only taking advantage of his temporary absence from Kanpur Suraj Narain had illegally and forcibly trespassed into the shop for some time but as soon as Radha Kishan came back in November 1954 he had recovered possession of the shop from Suraj Narain. At the instance of Radha Kishan a temporary injunction was issued by the Civil Judge restraining Ram Pratap Sharma from taking possession, but when Ram Pratap Sharma showed cause against the injunction it was vacated on 15-7-1954. Radha Kishan then informed the landlords on 24-7-1954 that he had vacated the shop. Ram Pratap Sharma then took possession of it. At the instance of Radha Kishan a temporary injunction was issued by the Civil Judge restraining Ram Pratap Sharma from taking possession, but when Ram Pratap Sharma showed cause against the injunction it was vacated on 15-7-1954. Radha Kishan then informed the landlords on 24-7-1954 that he had vacated the shop. Ram Pratap Sharma then took possession of it. The suggestion on behalf of the Respondent No. 6 therefore was that the Appellant had never been in lawful possession of the shop in pursuance of the allotment order in his favour. It was Radha Kishan who had been in possession and when he vacated Ram Pratap Sharma got into possession in pursuance of his own allotment order. It was contended by Respondent No. 6 that the allotment order in his favour was a perfectly valid order which could not be allowed to be questioned in the writ petition which had been filed at a time when the allotment order had not been made. 5. The Appellant conceded that Radha Kishan is his own brother. He however denied that he was acting in collusion with Radha Kishan or the officials of the Rent Control department. He alleged that his relations with Radha Kishan had not been good and there had been business rivalry between them. He pointed out that there was no suggestion that he was guilty of any misrepresentation or fraud in obtaining his own allotment order. He could not therefore be held responsible if the House Inspector submitted a wrong report. He also contended that he could not be bound by anything which Radha Kishan had said in the suit which he had filed, and that the suit had been filed only with the intention of keeping him (the Appellant) out of possession of the shop. 6. The petition was dismissed by Mehrotra, J. as he was of the opinion: (1) That the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 3-4-1954 cancelling the allotment order in favour of the Appellant could not be questioned on the ground that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer has not applied his independent mind to the question. That officer may have acted on the suggestion of the District Magistrate who was his superior officer but it could not be said that he had not applied his own mind to the matter. That officer may have acted on the suggestion of the District Magistrate who was his superior officer but it could not be said that he had not applied his own mind to the matter. (2) That the contention of the Appellant that the allotment order in his favour could not be cancelled after he had taken possession on its basis could not be accepted. Even if it was conceded that the Appellant had taken possession as he claimed to have done the allotment order could be questioned if it was found that it had been obtained by misrepresentacion and fraud. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had cancelled it on that basis. Whether any misrepresentation had actually been made or not was a question of fact which if disputed could not be gone into by this Court in writ proceedings. (3) That the allotment order in favour of the Respondent No. 6 could not be quashed as no grounds for the granting of that relief had been put forward in the petition. After the Respondent No. 6 had been impleaded only the prayer had been amended; no new ground had been put forward or added. Moreover, on 8-1-1955 when the allotment order in favour of Respondent No. 6 had been passed the shop was in fact vacant. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer had therefore jurisdiction to allot it in favour of Respondent No. 6 and as he had already entered into possession on the basis of the allotment, there was no question of the allotment in his favour being quashed. 7. The first contention pressed in appeal is that the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 3-4-1954 cancelling the allotment in the Appellant's favour was a void order because in passing it the Rent Control and Eviction Officer only carried out the directions of the District Magistrate and had not exercised his own independent discretion. It is conceded that an order of allotment being an administrative order it is open to the Officer who passed it to reconsider the matter and, if necessary, to cancel it. It is however urged that while reconsidering the matter the Officer concerned must exercise his own free and independent judgment and should not do the reconsideration at the bidding of some superior officer of coordinate jurisdiction. It is however urged that while reconsidering the matter the Officer concerned must exercise his own free and independent judgment and should not do the reconsideration at the bidding of some superior officer of coordinate jurisdiction. If he does so he acts illegally and in a manner not contemplated by law. The order passed by him on such a reconsideration is therefore a void order. Reliance is placed in support of this contention on several decisions of this Court including Civil Misc. Writ No. 86O of 1953 (Ram Chandra v. The District Magistrate) decided on 16-3-1955 by Brij Mohan Lall, J., Bishambhar Nath Saxena v. District Magistrate 1956 AWR (H.C.) 804, Civil Misc. Writ No. 33 of 1956 (Mohd. Yunus v. District Magistrate) Decided by Chaturvedi and Upadhya, JJ. on 14-12-1956, Civil Misc. Writ No. 563 of 1957 (Sri Krishna v. The Addl. District Matrate) 1958 AWR (H.C.) 313 decided on 6-9-1957 and J. V. Dass v. The District Magistrate 1957 AWR (H.C.) 240. No exception can be taken to the general proposition that the power in an administrative officer to pass an order includes the power to reconsider on cancel it, and that in exercising this power the Officer concerned should use his own free and independent judgment and should not act at the bidding of some one else. It will however depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether a particular impugned order has been passed at the dictation of another person or not. In the present case the application of Ram Pratap Sharma for being put in possession in pursuance of his allotment order was pending before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and its hearing was being postponed because the office reported that the file was not traceable. During the pendency of this application the order of allotment in favour of the Appellant was passed, and the Appellant himself put in appearance before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and requested him to drop the proceedings in Sharma's application because the shop had been allotted to him. Before any orders could be passed in the matter, Ram Pratap Sharma moved the District Magistrate to call for a report. Before any orders could be passed in the matter, Ram Pratap Sharma moved the District Magistrate to call for a report. In the report which he submitted the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in a way conceded that he had passed the allotment order in favour of the Appellant because of the misleading report of the House Inspector. He however did not feel sure as to how the matter could be set right. In his order of 1-4-1954, the District Magistrate expressed his own opinion that the allotment in favour of the Appellant was wrong and that Ram Pratap Sharma was entitled to be put in possession. He however did not pass this order himself and left it to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to pass the necessary order. The order of 3-4-1954, was then passed by the Rent Control and the Eviction Officer himself. He cancelled the allotment in the Appellant's favour and directed him to put Ram Pratap Sharma in possession. In the circumstances it is difficult to accept the suggestion that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer cancelled the allotment order in the Appellant's favour not of his own accord in the exercise of his own independent discretion but on being dictated to by the District Magistrate. There was nothing in law to prevent the Rent Control and Eviction Officer while exetcising his own discretion to consult the District Magistrate or to accept any suggestion made by him as to what was the right course to follow. The order cancelling the allotment in the Appellant's favour cannot therefore be questioned on the ground that it was passed by the District Magistrate and not by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. 8. It is however urged that the order was bad in any case because in pursuance of his own allotment order the Appellant had already taken possession and an allotment order cannot be cancelled after it has been acted upon by the allottee and he has taken possession on its basis unless it is proved that he obtained the allotment order by fraud or misrepresentation. In the present case it is urged that the Appellant had actually taken possession in pursuance of the allotment order on 19-11-1953 and it is not suggested by any body that he had practised any fraud or misrepresentation for obtaining that order. In the present case it is urged that the Appellant had actually taken possession in pursuance of the allotment order on 19-11-1953 and it is not suggested by any body that he had practised any fraud or misrepresentation for obtaining that order. A number of cases reported and unreported were referred to in this connection, and the Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied specially on the observations made by this Court in Mahabir Prasad v. District Magistrate, Kanpur 1955 AWR (H.C.) 384 where it was observed. 9. So far as the allotment order u/s 7 is concerned, I am definitely of the opinion that it is an administrative or an executive order. As a result of the above finding it will follow that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer can modify or cancel his previous order of allotment. But this power can be exercised so long as the allotee acting in pursuance of the order does not take possession of the accommodation. After possession had been taken over by the allottee in pursuance of the allotment order the Rent Control and Eviction Officer's power comes to an end (except in a case where the order was secured by fraud, misrepresentation of facts and some other undesirable method) because the accommodation is no longer vacant nor is about to fall vacant." It has been pointed out that this view is in consonance with the earlier decisions of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 827 of 1955 Opendra Bhan Kanchan v. Sri Krishna and others decided on 15-1-1956 and two unreported decisions referred to in that case. In Special Appeal No. 126 of 1956 decided on 9-10-1956 an allotment had been made in favour of A, but before he could take possession another allotment had been made in favour of B, who had taken possession. A moved the District Magistrate and he cancelled the order in favour of B. B went up in revision to the Commr. who set aside the order cancelling his allotment. The order of the Commr. was upheld by this Court. Following the case of Mahabir Prasad, 1955 AWR (H.C.) 384 Mehrotra, J. held in Har Bilas v. Tha Area Rationing Officer 1957 AWR (H.C) 242 that after the allottee had taken possession the allotment order in his favour could be cancelled only if fraud or misrepresentation was established. 10. The order of the Commr. was upheld by this Court. Following the case of Mahabir Prasad, 1955 AWR (H.C.) 384 Mehrotra, J. held in Har Bilas v. Tha Area Rationing Officer 1957 AWR (H.C) 242 that after the allottee had taken possession the allotment order in his favour could be cancelled only if fraud or misrepresentation was established. 10. There can be no doubt that ordinarily an order of allotment can be modified or cancelled only if in pursuance of it the allottee has not taken possession. There, however, appears to be no warrant for the assumption that fraud or misrepresentation of the allottee are the only grounds on which the order of allotment can be cancelled or modified after it has been acted upon. No such proposition was laid down in Mahabir Prasad's 1955 AWR (H.C.) 384 case, The terms "fraud" and "Misrepresentation of facts" were used there only in an illustrative way and the use of the words "or some other undesirable method" cleatly shows that fraud and misrepresentation of facts were not mentioned as the only grounds on which an allotment order could be cancelled or modified. It was also not laid down in that case that fraud or misrepresentation or the other undesirable method which could vitiate the order or cancellation or modification must necessarily be the act of the allottee himself. Mistake, ignorance of the real facts, collusion, and inadvertence appear to stand on the same footing as fraud or misrepresentation of facts and can be equally good grounds justifying the modification or the cancellation of an order. If fraud or misrepresentation of the allottee himself is a good ground for the re-consideration of the matter, there appears to be no reason why the allottee should be allowed to take advantage of the fraud or misrepresentation of someone else and to maintain the order of allotment in his favour if it was passed on the basis of that fraud or misrepresentation. If the Officer who passed the order finds that the order has been passed by mistake or under misapprehension of facts and should not have been passed at all there is no reason why he should not have the power to correct his own mistake, and to set matters right. 11. If the Officer who passed the order finds that the order has been passed by mistake or under misapprehension of facts and should not have been passed at all there is no reason why he should not have the power to correct his own mistake, and to set matters right. 11. In Sri R.L. Benipuri v. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Lucknow 1957 AWR (HC) 140 the allotment order had been passed in favour of the Petitioner who had taken possession of the accommodation on its basis. Subsequently, however, he had allowed another person to occupy the premises. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer he cancelled the allotment older. The order was not allowed to be questioned with the ramark. An Officer who has the power to make an order has also the power to cancel that order if the circumstanees demand such a cancellation so that there was no inherent want of jurisdiction in the officer cancelling the order in question. 12. In the present case the Rent Control and Eviction Officer considered that he passed the allotment order in favour of the Appellant without being apprised of the correct facts and because he had been misled by a wrong report of the Housing Inspector. Apparently he would never have passed the order had he known that an allotment order had already been passed in favour to Ram Pratap Sharma and that he had all along been attempting to be put in possession on its basis. The report of the Housing Inspector was unquestionably misleading and full facts had not been brought to the notice of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer at the time when the order of allotment in favoar of the Appellant was obtained. In the circumstances we think the Rent Control and Eviction Officer had jurisdiction to cancel the order wrongly passed. We are unable to accept the contention that the order became sacrosanct and immune from re-consideration simply because the Appellant managed to get possession on its basis and was not himself guilty of fraud or misrepresentation. 13. It has also to be borne in mind that it is not conceded by the opposite party that the Appellant actually got possession on the basis of the allotment order in his favour. 13. It has also to be borne in mind that it is not conceded by the opposite party that the Appellant actually got possession on the basis of the allotment order in his favour. The Respondent's contention is that Radha Kishan remained in actual possession till he vacated and Ram Pratap Sharma got the shop. Whether the Appellant got possession over the shop in pursuance of his allotment order is thus a disputed question of fact. Another question about which there is considerable dispute is that whether the appelant was guilty of collusion with Radha Kishan and the officials of the Rent Control Office and succeeded in obtaining the allotment order in his favour only with the help of that collusion. The Appellant strenuously denies it but the Respondent No. 6 asserts it with equal force. These disputed questions of fact could not be gone into in writ proceedings and the relief claimed by the Appellant could not be granted to him unless these disputed questions were answered in his favour. 14. After Ram Pratap Sharma vacated the shop it was allotted to the Respondent No. 6 and that Respondent entered into possession on the basis of that allotment. The Respondent No. 6 was impleaded in the petition and a relief was added that the order in his favour also be quashed. No ground was however added in the petition to support this additional relief. Before us it was argued that if the cancellation of the Appellant's allotment was invalid no vacancy of the shop occurred in the eye of the law even when Ram Pratap vacated the shop and the allotment made in favour of the Respondent No. 6 was therefore without jurisdiction. This contention was based on an analogy drawn from the case of Bahori Lal Paliwal v. The District Magistrate of Buland Shahr 1956 AWR (HC) 423 in which it was held that if an election was held on a casual vacancy being declared as a result of an election petition and it was subsequently found that the election petition had been wrongly allowed, the election held later was void. We think it unnecessary to enter into this question because as has been shown above we are not satisfied that the Appellant has succeeded in showing that the cancellation of the allotment order in his favour was really invalid and was liable to be quashed. 15. We think it unnecessary to enter into this question because as has been shown above we are not satisfied that the Appellant has succeeded in showing that the cancellation of the allotment order in his favour was really invalid and was liable to be quashed. 15. The reliefs claimed by the Appellant thus appears to have been rightly refused. The appeal has no force and is dismissed with costs.